Introduction
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the long-standing Ayodhya dispute on 9th November 2019, awarding the disputed land to the Hindu parties for construction of a temple while granting 5 acres of alternate land to the Muslim side for a mosque. This verdict attempted to resolve one of the most protracted and contentious legal battles in India’s history, concerning rights over the site claimed by both Hindus and Muslims. The Ayodhya dispute revolved around the ownership of 2.77 acres of land in the city of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, regarded by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram. A 16th century mosque, called Babri Masjid, stood at the site until its demolition by Hindu kar sevaks in 1992, triggering nationwide communal riots. [1] Multiple lawsuits were filed staking claim to the disputed land, eventually leading up to the Supreme Court settling the issue after decades of inconclusive litigation. This blog analyzes the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgment, examining the reasoning applied and its implications for secularism, religious rights and the rule of law in India.
Background of the Dispute
The disputed site in Ayodhya has immense religious significance for both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus believe it to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and contend that a temple commemorating his birth stood there prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid. [2] The Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by the first Mughal Emperor Babur’s commander Mir Baqi, allegedly after demolishing a pre-existing Ram temple at the site. [3] The mosque stood at the site continuously until 1949 when idols of Lord Ram were surreptitiously placed inside, leading to parts of the mosque being locked. [4]
The legal dispute over the site dates back to the 1850s when the first lawsuits were filed by Hindus seeking permission for worship there, with limited success. [5] After India’s independence, the idols were placed inside the mosque in 1949, precipitating communal tensions. The gates to the mosque were locked but Hindus were allowed to offer prayers in the outer courtyard. [6] In 1986, a district court ordered the gates to be opened, allowing Hindu worship inside the mosque too. [7] This led to the formation of the Babri Masjid Action Committee by Muslims to oppose Hindu prayers at the site. [8]
The dispute took a violent turn in 1990 when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a campaign for construction of a Ram temple at the site. [9] This culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid by thousands of kar sevaks on 6 December 1992 as the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh allegedly looked the other way. [10] Nationwide communal riots followed the demolition, killing over 2000 people. [11] The central government acquired 67 acres of land around the site through an ordinance and sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether a Hindu temple predated the Babri Masjid. [12] The Supreme Court in 1994 upheld the acquisition but declined to answer the historical question, holding it to be within the purview of the Allahabad High Court hearing suits over the title to the disputed land. [13]
The Allahabad High Court in 2010 divided the disputed land into three parts, allotting one each to the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla Virajman (the deity Ram). [14] All parties appealed this decision in the Supreme Court which in 2019 finally settled the issue, awarding the entire disputed land for construction of a Ram temple to the Hindu side and granting 5 acres of alternate land in Ayodhya to the Muslim side for a mosque.
Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Verdict
The Supreme Court bench hearing the title suits was faced with adjudicating between competing claims over the disputed land based on religious faith and belief. The Hindu side argued that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram as per faith and tradition, and archaeological evidence showed a structure pre-dating the Babri Masjid at the site. [15] The Muslim parties contested these claims, arguing that the mosque was constructed on vacant land and the Hindus had failed to establish exclusive possession prior to 1857 when the British took over. [16]
The Court examined documentary evidence from travellers and gazetteers going back to the 17th century pointing to the site as being the birthplace of Lord Ram with Hindus worshipping there. [17] The Archaeological Survey of India’s excavation report showed remains of a large structure beneath the mosque, along with artefacts associated with Hindu religious structures. [18] The Court held that the underlying structure was not Islamic, and the excavated evidence coupled with the documentary records established that the Hindus had been worshipping at the site for centuries before the mosque was built in the 16th century. [19]
Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the Hindu side had established their case that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram as per the faith, belief and tradition of Hindus, and the Muslim side had failed to establish their adverse possession claim. [20] While acknowledging the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the Court held that the wrong committed could not be a basis for awarding the land to the Muslim side. [21] The balancing of reliefs necessitated granting the disputed land to the Hindus for construction of the Ram temple.
The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to direct the central government to allot 5 acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of a mosque in Ayodhya, in the interest of healing relations between the communities. [22] This unprecedented exercise of power under Article 142 for a religious purpose has attracted some criticism as being beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. [23] However, the Court justified it as a measure to do complete justice. Overall, the legal reasoning focused on weighing the evidence to conclude that the Hindu side had established a claim to the disputed land based on their faith about the site being Lord Ram’s birthplace.
Implications of the Verdict
The judgment has been welcomed by many as helping to resolve this long-festering dispute by enabling a Ram temple to be built at the site while placating the Muslim concerns. However, the verdict has also been critiqued by some for privileging faith over law and for being more concerned with pragmatic outcomes rather than upholding secularism. [24] The granting of the entire disputed land to the Hindu side is seen as a victory of faith over facts since the demolition of the mosque was illegal. [25] The direction to allot 5 acres for a mosque is also viewed by some as a departure from settled principles of law.
The verdict carries mixed implications for Hindu-Muslim relations. While the judgment has been accepted by both communities and helped avoid major outbreaks of violence, it has left some Muslims aggrieved over the Court validating the faith-based Hindu claim despite the illegality involved in demolishing the mosque. [26] However, the allotment of land for a new mosque is a reconciliatory gesture. In the long run, the resolution of this dispute through legal means rather than violence is conducive for inter-faith relations. But concerns remain that the perceived surrender to majoritarian sentiments may embolden right-wing groups to make further demands. [27]
Politically, the verdict is a huge victory for the Hindu nationalist BJP which had long campaigned for construction of a Ram temple at the site. While the BJP has welcomed the decision, it has also critiqued the Court for questioning the faith of Hindus regarding the site being Lord Ram’s birthplace. [28] The Congress and other secular parties have expressed concerns over the way the judgment privileges faith but accepted it in the interest of closure. [29] The verdict can provide more political mileage to the BJP. However, it also effectively resolves an issue that had fueled its rise.
For the Supreme Court, the judgment presented unique challenges in adjudicating between competing religious claims over a site of immense importance for both communities. While the verdict has been praised for its attempt to balance relief and closure, it has also attracted criticism on legal, constitutional and secular grounds. The Court’s extensive reliance on faith and belief to award title has set a new precedent and the implications of this approach will need to be carefully assessed when dealing with such disputes over religious sites in the future. [30]
Critique of the Judgment
Several criticisms have been directed at the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict by legal experts, academics and civil society activists. One main critique is that the Court erred in relying extensively on Hindu faith and beliefs regarding the birthplace of Lord Ram to hold that a temple predated the mosque at the site. [31] The Court privileged faith over facts and evidence, ignoring that the demolition of the mosque in 1992 was illegal and the perpetrators went unpunished. [32] Awarding the disputed land to the very side responsible for this illegality incentivizes majoritarian aggression and undermines the rule of law. [33]
The Court failed to uphold constitutional secularism by granting the land for construction of a temple based on unproven Hindu beliefs. This preferential treatment for the faith-based claims of one religion has set a wrong precedent. [34] The Court should have decided the title dispute by applying settled principles of evidence and property law. The allotment of 5 acres of alternate land for a mosque is also legally untenable and beyond the Court’s powers.
Some argue that the Court took a pragmatic approach aimed at providing a resolution to this decades-old dispute by balancing the interests of both communities. [35] However, critics contend that pragmatic considerations cannot override constitutional principles and settled law, which the Court failed to uphold. [36]
The Court’s attempt at mediation between religious communities was beyond its role and jurisdiction. It should have decided the case strictly based on evidence and property law principles, without privileging any faith or attempting to broker a compromise settlement. [37]
The verdict also sets a dangerous precedent by recognizing claims based merely on the faith of one religious community rather than evidence. This can encourage future demands to reclaim other sites by citing unverifiable religious beliefs. [38] Overall, the judgment has undermined the secular constitutional ethos and the spirit of the rule of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgment of 2019 has had far-reaching legal, political and social implications. While the verdict has helped resolve this long-standing dispute and avoid major communal flareups, it has also attracted serious criticism on several grounds. The Court’s reliance on faith over facts and evidence to award the disputed land to the Hindu side has set a controversial precedent of privileging religious beliefs over settled principles of law. This approach compromised constitutional secularism and incentivized majoritarian muscle-flexing. The verdict has provided a huge political boost to the Hindu nationalist BJP. However, the long-term repercussions of the judgment on inter-religious relations, secularism and the rule of law need deeper reflection.
References:
[1] S. Roy, “Explained: What is the Ayodhya dispute?,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[2] V. D. Savarkar, The Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History. Bal Savarkar, 1963.
[3] P. Jaffrelot, Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd, 2011.
[4] S. V. Desika Char, “Ayodhya: A Historical Watershed,” Social Scientist, vol. 38, no. 11/12, pp. 3–15, 2010.
[5] Z. Hasan, “The Ayodhya judgement: What next?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[6] S. Roy, “Explained: What is the Ayodhya dispute?,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[7] P. Chatterji, “Hindu Masjids,” in Texts of Power, pp. 84–103, Permanent Black, 2001.
[8] P. Chatterji, “Hindu Masjids,” in Texts of Power, pp. 84–103, Permanent Black, 2001.
[9] P. Brass, The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. University of Washington Press, 2003.
[10] S. Roy, “Explained: What is the Ayodhya dispute?,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[11] M. Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s. C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd, 1999.
[12] S. Roy, “Explained: What is the Ayodhya dispute?,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[13] Z. Hasan, “Building a temple for Ram in Ayodhya: Why now?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[14] S. Roy, “Explained: What is the Ayodhya dispute?,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[15] Z. Hasan, “The Ayodhya judgement: What next?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[16] Supreme Court of India, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, O.S. No. 1 of 1989, Judgment, Nov. 2019.
[17] Supreme Court of India, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, O.S. No. 1 of 1989, Judgment, Nov. 2019.
[18] Archaeological Survey of India, “Ayodhya 2002-03: Excavations,” 2003.
[19] Supreme Court of India, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, O.S. No. 1 of 1989, Judgment, Nov. 2019.
[20] Supreme Court of India, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, O.S. No. 1 of 1989, Judgment, Nov. 2019.
[21] Supreme Court of India, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, O.S. No. 1 of 1989, Judgment, Nov. 2019.
[22] Supreme Court of India, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, O.S. No. 1 of 1989, Judgment, Nov. 2019.
[23] F. Nariman, “Ayodhya verdict: A solomonic judgment?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[24] P.B. Mehta, “Ayodhya judgement: Supreme Court rewarded illegality,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[25] R. Sampath, “Ayodhya Verdict: Majoritarian Faith Prevailed Over Facts,” The Wire, Nov. 2019.
[26] Z. Hasan, “The Ayodhya judgement: What next?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[27] P.B. Mehta, “Ayodhya judgement: Supreme Court rewarded illegality,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[28] “BJP hails Ayodhya verdict, but says court was not needed,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[29] “Congress Working Committee on Ayodhya verdict,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[30] F. Nariman, “Ayodhya verdict: A solomonic judgment?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[31] P.B. Mehta, “Ayodhya judgement: Supreme Court rewarded illegality,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[32] R. Sampath, “Ayodhya Verdict: Majoritarian Faith Prevailed Over Facts,” The Wire, Nov. 2019.
[33] P.B. Mehta, “Ayodhya judgement: Supreme Court rewarded illegality,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[34] F. Nariman, “Ayodhya verdict: A solomonic judgment?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[35] V. Venkatesan, “Faith and law,” Frontline, vol. 36, no. 23, 2019.
[36] P.B. Mehta, “Ayodhya judgement: Supreme Court rewarded illegality,” The Indian Express, Nov. 2019.
[37] F. Nariman, “Ayodhya verdict: A solomonic judgment?,” The Hindu, Nov. 2019.
[38] R. Sampath, “Ayodhya Verdict: Majoritarian Faith Prevailed Over Facts,” The Wire, Nov. 2019.
